This invention is particularly suited for in-situ applications of liquid chemicals mixed and dispensed as a spray or a foam and more specifically, to in-situ application of polyurethane foam or froth and the measurement of the temperature of the chemicals used therewith. In-situ applications for polyurethane foam have continued to increase in recent years extending the application of polyurethane foam beyond its traditional uses in the packaging, insulation and molding fields. For example, polyurethane foam is being used with increasing frequency as a sealant in the building trades for sealing spaces between windows and door frames and the like and as an adhesive for gluing flooring, roof tiles, and the like.
Polyurethane foam for in-situ applications is typically supplied as a “one-component” froth foam or a “two-component” froth foam in portable containers hand carried and dispensed by the operator through either a valve or a gun. However, the chemical reactions producing the polyurethane froth foam in a “one-component” polyurethane foam is significantly different than the chemical reactions producing a polyurethane froth foam in a “two-component” polyurethane foam. Because the reactions are different, the dispensing of the chemicals for a two-component polyurethane foam involves different and additional concepts and concerns than that present in the dispensing apparatus for a “one-component” polyurethane froth foam.
A “one-component” foam generally means that both the resin and the isocyanate used in the foam formulation are supplied in a single pressurized container and dispensed from the container through a valve or a gun attached to the container. When the chemicals leave the valve, a reaction with moisture in the air produces a polyurethane froth or foam. Thus, the design concerns related to an apparatus for dispensing one-component polyurethane foam essentially concerns the operating characteristics of how the one-component polyurethane foam is throttled or metered from the pressurized container. While one-component guns can variably meter the polyurethane froth, they are typically used in caulk/glue applications where an adhesive or caulk bead is determined by the nozzle configuration. Post drip is a major concern in such applications as well as the dispensing gun not clogging because of reaction of the one component formulation with air (moisture) within the gun. To address or at least partially address such problems, a needle valve seat is typically applied as close to the dispensing point by a metering rod arrangement which can be pulled back for cleaning. While metering can occur at the needle valve seat, the seat is primarily for shut-off to prevent post drip; and depending on gun dimensioning, metering may principally occur at the gun opening.
In contrast, a “two-component” froth foam means that one principal foam component is supplied in one pressurized container, typically the “A” container (i.e., polymeric isocyanate, fluorocarbons, etc.) while the other principal foam component is supplied in a second pressurized container, typically the “B” container (i.e., polyols, catalysts, flame retardants, fluorocarbons, etc.).
In a two-component polyurethane foam, the “A” and “B” components form the foam or froth, when they are mixed in the gun. Of course, chemical reactions with moisture in the air will also occur with a two-component polyurethane foam after dispensing, but the principal reaction forming the polyurethane foam occurs when the “A” and “B” components are mixed, or contact one another in the dispensing gun. The dispensing apparatus for a two-component polyurethane foam application has to thus address not only the metering design concerns present in a one-component dispensing apparatus, but also the mixing requirements of a two-component polyurethane foam.
Further, a “frothing” characteristic of the foam (foam assumes consistency resembling shaving cream) is enhanced by the fluorocarbon (or similar) component, which is present in the “A” and “B” components. This fluorocarbon component is a compressed gas which exits in its liquid state under pressure and changes to it gaseous state when the liquid is dispensed into a lower pressure ambient environment, such as when the liquid components exit the gun and enter the nozzle.
While polyurethane foam is well known, the formulation varies considerably depending on application. In particular, while the polyols and isocyanates are typically kept separate in the “B” and “A” containers, other chemicals in the formulation may be placed in either container with the result that the weight or viscosity of the liquids in each container varies as well as the ratios at which the “A” and “B” components are to be mixed. In the dispensing gun applications which relate to this invention, the “A” and “B” formulations are such that the mixing ratios are generally kept equal so that the “A” and “B” containers are the same size. However, the weight, more importantly the viscosity, of the liquids in the containers invariably vary from one another. To adjust for viscosity variation between “A” and “B” chemical formulations, the “A” and “B” containers are charged (typically with an inert gas,) at different pressures to achieve equal flow rates. The metering valves in a two-component gun, therefore, have to meter different liquids at different pressures at a precise ratio under varying flow rates. For this reason (among others), some dispensing guns have a design where each metering rod/valve is separately adjustable against a separate spring to compensate not only for ratio variations in different formulations but also viscosity variations between the components. The typical two-component dispensing gun in use today can be viewed as two separate one-component dispensing guns in a common housing discharging their components into a mixing chamber or nozzle. In practice, often the gun operator adjusts the ratio settings to improve gun “performance” with poor results. To counteract this adverse result, the ratio adjustment then has to be “hidden” within the gun, or the design has to be such that the ratio setting is “fixed” in the gun for specific formulations. The gun cost is increased in either event and “fixing” the ratio setting to a specific formulation prevents interchangeability of the dispensing gun.
Besides the ratio control which distinguishes two-component dispensing guns from one-component dispensing guns, a concern which affects all two-component gun designs (not present in one-component dispensing guns) is known in the trade as “cross-over”. Generally, “cross-over” means that one of the components of the foam (“A” or “B”) has crossed over into the dispensing mechanism in the dispensing gun for the other component (“B” or “A”). Cross-over may occur when the pressure variation between the “A” and “B” cylinders becomes significant. Variation can become significant when the foam formulation initially calls for the “A” and “B” containers to be at high differential charge pressures and the containers have discharged a majority of their components. (The containers are accumulators which inherently vary the pressure as the contents of the container are used.) To overcome this problem, it is known to equip the guns with conventional one-way valves, such as a poppet valve (or other similarly acting device). While necessary, the dispensing gun's cost is increased.
Somewhat related to cross-over and affecting the operation of a two-component gun is the design of the nozzle. The nozzle is a throw away item detachably mounted to the gun nose. Nozzle design is important for cross-over and metering considerations in that the nozzle directs the “A” and “B” components to a static mixer in the gun.
A still further characteristic distinguishing two-component from one-component gun designs resides in the clogging tendencies of two-component guns. Because the foam foaming reaction commences when the “A” and “B” components contact one another, it is clear that, once the gun is used, the static mixer will clog with polyurethane foam or froth formed within the mixer. This is why the nozzles, which contain the static mixer, are designed are throw away items. In practice, the foam does not instantaneously form within the nozzle upon cessation of metering to the point where the nozzles have to be discarded. Some time must elapse. This is a function of the formulation itself, the design of the static mixer and, all things being equal, the design of the nozzle.
The dispensing gun of the present invention is particularly suited for use in two-component polyurethane foam “kits” typically sold to the building or construction trade. Typically, the kit contains two pressurized “A” and “B” cylinders of about 7.5 inches in diameter which are pressurized anywhere between 150-250 psi, a pair of hoses for connection to the cylinders and a dispensing gun, all of which are packaged in a container constructed to house and carry the components to the site where the foam is to be applied. When the chemicals in the “A” and “B” containers are depleted, the kit is sometimes discarded or the containers can be recycled. The dispensing gun may or may not be replaced. Since the dispensing gun is included in the kit, kit cost considerations dictate that the dispensing gun be relatively inexpensive. Typically, the dispensing gun is made from plastic with minimal usage of machined parts.
The dispensing guns cited and to which this invention relates are additionally characterized and distinguished from other types of multi-component dispensing guns in that they are, “airless” and do not contain provisions for cleaning the gun. That is, a number of dispensing or metering guns or apparatus, particularly those used in high volume foam applications, are equipped or provided with a means or mechanism to introduce air or a solvent for cleaning or clearing the passages in the gun. The use of the term “airless” as used in this patent and the claims hereof means that the dispensing apparatus is not provided with an external, cleaning or purging mechanism.
While the two-component dispensing guns discussed above function in a commercially acceptable manner, it is becoming increasingly clear as the number of in-situ applications for polyurethane foam increase, that the range or the ability of the dispensing gun to function for all such applications has to be improved. As a general example, the dispensing gun design has to be able to throttle or meter a fine bead of polyurethane froth in a sealant application where the kit is sold to seal spaces around window frames, door frames, and the like in the building trade. In contrast, where the kit is sold to form insulation, an ability to meter or flow a high volume flow of chemicals is required. Still yet, in an adhesive application, liquid spray patterns of various widths and thickness are required. While the “A” and “B” components for each of these applications are specially formulated and differ from one another, one dispensing gun for all such applications involving different formulations of the chemicals is needed.
At least one recurring quality issue facing the disposable polyurethane foam kit industry is the inability of end-users to effectively assess the core chemical temperature of the liquid and gas contents contained therein. Two important functions are often negatively impacted: achievement of maximum foam kit yield on the job site, and proper chemical cure of the “A” & “B” components.
Maximum yield is highly desired by purchasers of polyurethane foam kit products. If the chemicals are too cold for optimum use, the “B”-side viscosity increases, which in turn distorts the 1:1 ratio (by weight) required for proper yield. Lower-than-advertised yields carry significant economical consequences for the contractor.
Proper chemical cure (on-ratio ˜1:1) is also critical to achieving maximum physical properties. It ensures that the cured foam meets building code specifications, e.g. fire ratings. In addition, a complete, on-ratio cure is critical for the health and safety of foam kit operators and building occupants. Again, cold chemical temperatures (below recommended) can create off-ratio foam, with the resulting incomplete chemical cure.
At least one important variable impacting the above issues is the core chemical temperature of the liquid/gas contents of the foam kit. The core chemical temperature of a kit before use must meet the manufacturer's recommended temperature, usually ˜75° F.-85° F., in order to meet the objectives of maximum yield and proper (complete) chemical cure. However, end-users typically do not condition the kits long enough at the recommended temperature. For example, kits stored in an unconditioned warehouse or insulation truck in the winter months may have a core chemical temperature of only ˜40° F. If dispensed without being conditioned for a sufficient amount of time, the result is foam of very poor physical quality and appearance. Also, improper chemical cure will most likely occur (unbalanced ratio of “A” to “B” chemical, which is typically 1:1 by weight). This “off-ratio” foam becomes a liability for the reasons mentioned above. It can take up to 48 hours to condition cylinders to the recommended chemical temperature, a recommendation often ignored by end-users.
The industry has long searched for an effective, economical way to allow end-users to gauge the core chemical temperature of a kit with a reasonable degree of qualitative accuracy before applying the foam. This invention utilizes thermochromism in both the nozzle and the hoses associated with the “A” and “B” chemicals to determine when the temperature of the chemicals falls within the acceptable use range, based upon the color change of the nozzle or hose due to a change in temperature of the flowing chemical.